Humans Need Not Apply
Pages: 12
Last edited on
Freaking awesome.
Capitalism has been broken for decades. This kind of shift is really what we need to get us out of it.
Capitalism has been broken for decades. This kind of shift is really what we need to get us out of it.
The government wont allow automation that worsens the economy. They didnt even allow Tesla to bypass car dealerships.
| The government wont allow automation that worsens the economy |
How can you make that distinction?
Using robots is more economical. That's the whole point. They cost less than human counterparts.
It's more cost effective for the employer, but it doesn't make the economy better off. How will people pay for products,mortgage,utilities if they aren't paid?
That's the problem that needs solving. I personally like the solution from Star Trek: get rid of money ;p
| It's more cost effective for the employer, but it doesn't make the economy better off. How will people pay for products,mortgage,utilities if they aren't paid? |
Yes, that's the problem. But you can't make a law that says "companies can't use machines". That would be equally devastating to the economy.
You said the government won't allow this to happen. What I'm saying is there's nothing they can do to stop it.
The only solution is to get more socialist. Wealth redistribution and all that.
@LB
Yes, it's possible!! Now... where are my replicator schematics??
;)
By the way: Capitalism isn't borken. Every system comes down to one factor: human involvement. No system will ever be perfect, because it's run by us: greedy, consuming, lazy humans. It is in our nature to want to acquire the best [thing] by doing the least work, or spending the least amount of money possible. While capitalism encourages this, it also encourages competition. Competition between people is what's supposed to make the playing field even, and result in a better market. Unfortunately, we've come to a point where technology can easily replace menial tasks and the humans that do them. Why pay a worker by the hour when you can pay a few cents an hour for a robot that does the same thing in less time, perfectly every time?
So, ultimately, we are faced with the delima: do we want to embrace robotics, at the price of work, and the gain of higher-quantity, cheap, high-quality goods, or reject the robotics at the price of lower-quantity, expensive, low-quality goods?
Just a thought.
Yes, it's possible!! Now... where are my replicator schematics??
;)
By the way: Capitalism isn't borken. Every system comes down to one factor: human involvement. No system will ever be perfect, because it's run by us: greedy, consuming, lazy humans. It is in our nature to want to acquire the best [thing] by doing the least work, or spending the least amount of money possible. While capitalism encourages this, it also encourages competition. Competition between people is what's supposed to make the playing field even, and result in a better market. Unfortunately, we've come to a point where technology can easily replace menial tasks and the humans that do them. Why pay a worker by the hour when you can pay a few cents an hour for a robot that does the same thing in less time, perfectly every time?
So, ultimately, we are faced with the delima: do we want to embrace robotics, at the price of work, and the gain of higher-quantity, cheap, high-quality goods, or reject the robotics at the price of lower-quantity, expensive, low-quality goods?
Just a thought.
Last edited on
| Capitalism isn't borken. |
The irony in that typo is pretty funny.
Maybe I shouldn't have said "broken" so much as I should have seen "ever increasingly flawed". It suffers from some extremely undesirable traits. The most obvious among them is that greed is the only thing that is truly rewarded.
It's built on the idea that people need to work to live. But as the linked video is showing, we keep getting closer and closer to a tipping point where there won't be enough work to go around. Where we, as a society, will be able to survive largely off the fruits of automation. Such a world should be Utopian, but capitalism dictates it will be a complete collapse.
| Competition between people is what's supposed to make the playing field even |
Competition tempered with regulation is the only way this can be accomplished. If you have unregulated business, you get the scenarios where robber-barons control entire industries.
Straight competition works for a while... until the scales tip in one company's favor. Once that happens it's no longer competitive for anyone.
| Unfortunately, we've come to a point where technology can easily replace menial tasks and the humans that do them. |
I don't see this as unfortunate. It's unfortunate through the eyes of capitalism... but that's why we need to come up with something else.
I mean really... can you imagine anything better than a world where people only have to work like 8 hours a week and robots do all the real work? It'd be amazing!
| So, ultimately, we are faced with the delima: do we want to embrace robotics, at the price of work, and the gain of higher-quantity, cheap, high-quality goods, or reject the robotics at the price of lower-quantity, expensive, low-quality goods? |
The answer, to me, is obvious.
People work less and have a higher quality of life.
Vs. people working more and having a lower quality of life.
What's the dilemma again?
I didn't say the government wont allow machines, I said the government wont allow automation if it means making the economy worse off. Robots in manufacturing,and agriculture took jobs, but it also moved workers to new growing sectors of the economy. You cant have total automation in a capitalist economy.
I am in total agreement with IWishIknew, changing a system doesn't change humans. Humans,and all animals take advantage of situations to protect their own well being. Fine no one has to work, but it is crazy to suggest that everyone would be on a level playing field where no one is taken advantage of.
I am in total agreement with IWishIknew, changing a system doesn't change humans. Humans,and all animals take advantage of situations to protect their own well being. Fine no one has to work, but it is crazy to suggest that everyone would be on a level playing field where no one is taken advantage of.
| I didn't say the government wont allow machines, I said the government wont allow automation if it means making the economy worse off. |
But how can you make that distinction? It's impossible. Ultimately it'd have to come down to the government outlawing certain machines. And there's no way anyone will ever go for that.
| Robots in manufacturing,and agriculture took jobs, but it also moved workers to new growing sectors of the economy. |
Did you watch the video?
| You cant have total automation in a capitalist economy. |
I agree completely.
That's why we need to move away from a capitalist society and be more socialist.
| Fine no one has to work, but it is crazy to suggest that everyone would be on a level playing field where no one is taken advantage of. |
When did I ever say that?
The one dilemma that I can see is that in the modern world, a "higher quality of life", corresponds to more consumption of resources. I don't know the stats off the top of my head, but I've read that US citizens on average consume a ridiculously disproportionate amount of resources compared to the average world citizen. And we really don't even have enough of the natural resources, we rely on in the world, for everyone to live like the average US citizen. So to equalize living standards, or at least bring everyone up to high living standards, is tricky and would require a revolution in the way support our high standards of living. Basically we have to not be so wasteful, be more efficient, and environmentally conscious.
You could imagine that with the wrong leadership, all of this automation, along with human greed, could lead to a large scale raping of the world. With the technology that could allow everyone to live like a king or queen, everyone will want to. And those who already do, won't want to stop, but it's the fact that others are living beneath them supporting their excess that they allowed to now. When it's technology alone that provides this, how do you distribute rights to production? It's hard to imagine that people will not fight for those rights and to deprive others in order to elevate themselves.
The very idea of ownership of land, water, and other natural resources is not really compatible with this type of futuristic society.
Society will have to change. It's hard to imagine it happening quickly because people simply wouldn't allow it. Enough people who don't want the change would probably fight it to the end. So it would have to be forced on the world, and that would be a recipe for terrible prolonged war.
The first step, I guess, is a revolution in power generation, doing away with use of thing like coal, oil, and natural gas for power and transportation; which has to happen at some point anyways, since we will run out of it soon enough.
I guess it will take some real imminent, and impossible to ignore threat, or maybe even disaster, to get people to accept this drastic of a change.
And lastly, while it's fairly easy to envision a new type of utopia like this, in reality there are a lot of ways it can go wrong, or be corrupted and lead to something terrible. We all jump on board with the dream of these great and easy lives and bright future for people and the planet, and then some villain steps in, takes control, and suddenly everyone is being intentionally starved to death or murdered, or it becomes some small isolated utopias for the elite, with most people being excluded and crowded into ghettos with little means to survive.
You could imagine that with the wrong leadership, all of this automation, along with human greed, could lead to a large scale raping of the world. With the technology that could allow everyone to live like a king or queen, everyone will want to. And those who already do, won't want to stop, but it's the fact that others are living beneath them supporting their excess that they allowed to now. When it's technology alone that provides this, how do you distribute rights to production? It's hard to imagine that people will not fight for those rights and to deprive others in order to elevate themselves.
The very idea of ownership of land, water, and other natural resources is not really compatible with this type of futuristic society.
Society will have to change. It's hard to imagine it happening quickly because people simply wouldn't allow it. Enough people who don't want the change would probably fight it to the end. So it would have to be forced on the world, and that would be a recipe for terrible prolonged war.
The first step, I guess, is a revolution in power generation, doing away with use of thing like coal, oil, and natural gas for power and transportation; which has to happen at some point anyways, since we will run out of it soon enough.
I guess it will take some real imminent, and impossible to ignore threat, or maybe even disaster, to get people to accept this drastic of a change.
And lastly, while it's fairly easy to envision a new type of utopia like this, in reality there are a lot of ways it can go wrong, or be corrupted and lead to something terrible. We all jump on board with the dream of these great and easy lives and bright future for people and the planet, and then some villain steps in, takes control, and suddenly everyone is being intentionally starved to death or murdered, or it becomes some small isolated utopias for the elite, with most people being excluded and crowded into ghettos with little means to survive.
I think it's more likely that, for a long time, many jobs won't be able to be completely replaced by an automaton. See for example autopilots. They're awesome, they can fly planes pretty much by themselves, but every once in a while the human pilot needs to step in because the situation is too complex for the autopilot to handle. I think it will be many, many years before the first autocars with No Input Required(tm) start rolling down the street.
The video also mentions automatic trading, which is interesting, because it's a joke. Imagine a world-wide game of poker where the stakes are everyone's money and the players are all faceless robots. That's pretty much the state of automatic trading. Rather than on outside events, trades are increasingly made based on what other trades have been made, with some algorithms even being designed to recognize the outputs of other algorithms and to out-trade them.
Ultimately, all the problems mentioned in the video are variations of the same topic: there's too many of us. If it comes to a point where we are capable of creating a society where we can easily maintain 5-10% of the current population, all of whom are doing meaningful work and have all their needs met, I think any push in that direction is the way to go.
The video also mentions automatic trading, which is interesting, because it's a joke. Imagine a world-wide game of poker where the stakes are everyone's money and the players are all faceless robots. That's pretty much the state of automatic trading. Rather than on outside events, trades are increasingly made based on what other trades have been made, with some algorithms even being designed to recognize the outputs of other algorithms and to out-trade them.
Ultimately, all the problems mentioned in the video are variations of the same topic: there's too many of us. If it comes to a point where we are capable of creating a society where we can easily maintain 5-10% of the current population, all of whom are doing meaningful work and have all their needs met, I think any push in that direction is the way to go.
It's not impossible at all, the government already makes certain acquisitions illegal between corporations for the sake of the economy, not allowing automation if it means a large increase in unemployment isn't too far off . If we both agree that total automation can't exist in a capitalist economy, we know that the government would have to draw a line regardless.
My other point wasn't directed at you Disch, it was a general statement that utopia's arent possible.
Yes, I did see the video so you'll have to elaborate on that one point Disch.
My other point wasn't directed at you Disch, it was a general statement that utopia's arent possible.
Yes, I did see the video so you'll have to elaborate on that one point Disch.
| It's not impossible at all, the government already makes certain acquisitions illegal between corporations for the sake of the economy, not allowing automation if it means a large increase in unemployment isn't too far off . If we both agree that total automation can't exist in a capitalist economy, we know that the government would have to draw a line regardless. |
It can't really be stopped so easily. If you outlaw automation in the US, then everything will just be produced off shore where those laws don't apply. You would have to outlaw goods sold outside the country. But then all goods sold in the country would have to come from companies that are making things here for us, practically for charity, or it would have to be done by the government because they would not be able to compete at all in the international economy. Basically banning automation in the US would pretty much mean for giving up all of our industries and what ever lead or edge we have on other nations, and as is already beginning happening, other countries such as China and Japan, would dwarf the country in the balance of power.
One of the major pitfalls with capitalism is that an advantage, no matter what the consequences/side effects, will almost always be exploited, and if one does it, then all must do it, or perish. And the other issue is that the government is puppeted by lobbyists so, what is in the best interest of those who pay usually trumps what's in the best interest of the world, human kind, and our future; even our economy.
Stopping automation is more unrealistic in my opinion, than stopping the inevitable change in world order that will come with it.
I like to be positive, but I can't help but think that some time in the next few hundred years or so, all of these issues along with overpopulation will result in, probably, an era of human suffering and death far greater in magnitude than ever before in the history of man kind. I hope I'm wrong.
On the bright side, programming jobs won't dies out so fast. On the darker side, the programming industry will be so flooded that it will still be incredibly difficult to get a job. With the huge demand and huge supply, they will still be cheap jobs and the competition will be fierce.
Last edited on
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| I think it will be many, many years before the first autocars with No Input Required(tm) start rolling down the street. |
Google has been running driverless cars on public roads for 2 years now. Though they did have humans in the car just in case it needed manual override (which it never did). They just proposed a fully autonomous car with no steering wheel or pedals earlier this year.
It's not as far off as you may think. Maybe 2-3 years.
| cody0023 wrote: |
|---|
| It's not impossible at all, the government already makes certain acquisitions illegal between corporations for the sake of the economy, not allowing automation if it means a large increase in unemployment isn't too far off . |
The thing is automation has been legal since forever, and several industries are completely dependent on it. If you just make all automation illegal, you will completely destroy those industries and by extension the economy.
How can the government draw a line between which automation is allowed and which isn't?
htirwin's point about outsourcing is another good point. If you make things harder to do in the US, then the jobs won't be based in the US. Either way, you're killing jobs.
| Robots in manufacturing,and agriculture took jobs, but it also moved workers to new growing sectors of the economy. [snip] Yes, I did see the video so you'll have to elaborate on that one point Disch. |
The video specifically mentioned this point. The point was that there are no growing sectors in the economy. It's all going towards automation now. Everything. There simply won't be jobs available.
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| I like to be positive, but I can't help but think that some time in the next few hundred years or so, all of these issues along with overpopulation will result in, probably, an era of human suffering and death far greater in magnitude than ever before in the history of man kind. I hope I'm wrong. |
Humans are very good at self-preservation. I wouldn't paint a doomsday scenario... just a "things are going to have to change" scenario.
When it's "change or die", people will be willing to change.
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| The one dilemma that I can see is that in the modern world, a "higher quality of life", corresponds to more consumption of resources |
This is a fantastic point. You're absolutely right. We need to get better sources of energy.
Did those cars encounter any exceptional situations? What kind of speeds did they reach?
While I'm sure almost any [sort of okay or better] autocar will be better in all situations than Average Dickhead, some drivers will be better than the car in some situations.
And if you take away an activity everyone does, and replace it with an activity only experts do, these gaps in skill become wider, and we get to the point I was implicitly making. Sure, RoboNurse can extract your blood for a test like the best of them, but can it rush to your side to assist the doctor when you're having a heart attack?
The Pareto rule applies here like in many other places. These 20% situations is what uses 80% of the skill.
But I do think that even partly automated cars would be way better then what we have now.
While I'm sure almost any [sort of okay or better] autocar will be better in all situations than Average Dickhead, some drivers will be better than the car in some situations.
And if you take away an activity everyone does, and replace it with an activity only experts do, these gaps in skill become wider, and we get to the point I was implicitly making. Sure, RoboNurse can extract your blood for a test like the best of them, but can it rush to your side to assist the doctor when you're having a heart attack?
The Pareto rule applies here like in many other places. These 20% situations is what uses 80% of the skill.
But I do think that even partly automated cars would be way better then what we have now.
| Did those cars encounter any exceptional situations? |
2 accidents: 1 when a person was driving one of them. And 1 when another person rear-ended the car when it was stopped at a stoplight.
| What kind of speeds did they reach? |
Speed limit.
| While I'm sure almost any [sort of okay or better] autocar will be better in all situations than Average Dickhead, some drivers will be better than the car in some situations. |
Humans are unpredictable and dangerous. Machines... not so much.
Given that the cars have 0 blind spots, are always vigilant, never tired, never distracted, and could communicate with other nearby cars instantly.
If all cars on the road are autocars, I fail to see how there could ever be any accidents that aren't caused by severe hardware malfunction (tire blowout, etc). But even in those cases... a machine could not only respond faster than a human could... but it could also immediately broadcast distress to all neighboring cars so they could react as well.
And think of what it could do for emergency vehicles! Cars could get out of the way much faster allowing the emergency vehicle to obtain faster speeds and have fewer obstructions.
It's just a matter of getting the technology affordable and commonplace. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a requirement that all new cars be autocars within 20 years... and that within 30 or 40 it be required that all cars on the road be autocars.
There could also be a public transportation revolution, where people don't have to own cars, but instead can just hop in a city car that's parked on the road and take it to wherever they want to go. Like a massive taxi service but without the need for taxi drivers.
| Sure, RoboNurse can extract your blood for a test like the best of them, but can it rush to your side to assist the doctor when you're having a heart attack? The Pareto rule applies here like in many other places. These 20% situations is what uses 80% of the skill. |
Maybe not yet. But one day.
| And think of what it could do for emergency vehicles! Cars could get out of the way much faster allowing the emergency vehicle to obtain faster speeds and have fewer obstructions. |
* Enough room to safely initiate the maneuver?
* Anything on the road that should be avoided, lest the emergency situation worsen? E.g. bike lanes, smaller vehicles, pedestrians, road hazards.
* Is it okay/safe to cross this red light to make way?
And, remember, the car will sooner or later need to handle all these things simultaneously.
| There could also be a public transportation revolution, where people don't have to own cars, but instead can just hop in a city car that's parked on the road and take it to wherever they want to go. Like a massive taxi service but without the need for taxi drivers. |
| Maybe not yet. But one day. |
| That actually makes an excellent example of a very difficult situation for a robot to handle. |
I don't see it as very difficult.
None of the things you mention seem like they'd be hard for a robot to handle. It's just a matter of looking around and observing obstacles. Which is something they already do.
| Right, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying completely removing the human element will not be possible for a long time. |
Yeah but how many jobs actually require that human element? Nurses/doctors are a good example. So is law enforcement and software development. But apart from that I struggle to think of anything else.
We obviously can't build an economy on a choice from 3 jobs. And that's kind of the point. It's a slow transition that is starting. Unemployment is already high -- now it's just going to get worse.
Pages: 12